|
Pick posted:Wasserman noted this, which... uhm. This will probably be impossible to tell for sure until 2022. I think the GOP is definitely going to take a hit, and while it’s early, I think there’s actually a decent chance that the Dems hold both houses in 22. First, for the reasons you posted, a lot of the R voters are really just Trump supporters, and the more moderate R voters are now independents or even Dems. We saw this in 18 where Republicans faired very poorly, but bounced back in 20 with Trump on the ticket. Second, Republicans have way more to defend in the senate. There are 20 R seats vs. 14 D seats, and the R seats are way more vulnerable. Dems will have to defend GA and AZ. While Republicans have to defend IA, FL, WI, NC, PA, and OH. So Dem money can be way more focused, and I think Dems can easily hold those two seats, while there’s a decent chance Dems could flip one or two from the Republicans. The house I’m not sure will be flipped back now. If Dems managed to hold off all those Trump voters, I’m not sure where the GOP finds new voters, especially without Trump. Then again, two years is a long time and who the hell knows what happens.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
vyelkin posted:
This really just tells me that they don't want a moderate. Look at the top 3; Trump Cruz and Rubio. Kasich is the closest thing to a moderate on the whole map and only won his home state. Republicans LIKE crazy extreme candidates. They ARE the party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 13:19
|
|
|
Also, GOP may have tough impeachment votes coming up. Depending on the state, voting to aquit could destroy them in the general while voting to convict could crush them in a primary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 13:19
|
|
|
As close as a lot of elections are, Republicans losing even 20% of their supporters (either by going hard Trump or by losing the hard Trump vote) will mean electoral death at a national level and in a lot of states.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 14:19
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:As close as a lot of elections are, Republicans losing even 20% of their supporters (either by going hard Trump or by losing the hard Trump vote) will mean electoral death at a national level and in a lot of states. How much do you think continued years of mind-numbing right wing media (either traditional or online/social) counteracts that though? I think that whole ideological support apparatus is very effective at keeping the death spiral from happening by normalizing even the most extreme GOP positions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 14:34
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:The Republicans in New York are insane cop union/Giuliani type people. I don't think it would help. I forget if I said it here, but as someone in the NYC metro (CT), our Republicans are very clearly split down the middle into Romney types and the chuds. So yeah the chuds are there no doubt, many in that ever lovely Northeastern "racist as gently caress white-ethnics" variety that you guys call Staten Island and we might call East Haven. But they aren't as overwhelming a factor as in other states in my experience, their primaries for governor and stuff are absolute shitshows that ends with them unhappy and divided.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:How much do you think continued years of mind-numbing right wing media (either traditional or online/social) counteracts that though? I think that whole ideological support apparatus is very effective at keeping the death spiral from happening by normalizing even the most extreme GOP positions. Remains to be seen - I'd personally be pessimistic, but it seems like we might have just gotten a small taste of it in Georgia, so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 15:18
|
|
|
Grape posted:I forget if I said it here, but as someone in the NYC metro (CT), our Republicans are very clearly split down the middle into Romney types and the chuds. This is a very similar dynamic to the one that's developed within the Virginia GOP, with old-school country club assholes (e.g. Kirk Cox) battling it out with new school blood gargling Q cultists (e.g. Amanda Chase) in primaries and then losing in the general because of all the insane poo poo they had to say to get the nomination. They've attempted on a couple of occasions to get around it by using firehouse primaries or conventions, but those moves are unpopular and of limited usefulness. Incidentally, I'm really interested to see how Amanda Chase runs her primary campaign for governor while facing federal indictment for insurrection 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 15:18
|
|
|
Shiva did loose the MA Republican Senate primary to some generic republican my brain can't remember. (Of course he cried fraud).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:How much do you think continued years of mind-numbing right wing media (either traditional or online/social) counteracts that though? I think that whole ideological support apparatus is very effective at keeping the death spiral from happening by normalizing even the most extreme GOP positions. My thinking for that 20% number I mentioned was the following: In that Twitter thread about people being supporters of Trump or the Republican Party on average over the last two years 40% of GOP voters said they they were supporters of the Republican Party and not Trump. This didn't change too much in that time frame of humongous right-ward pressure. I would expect these people to be among the most moderate GOP supporters. If even half of them abandon the GOP (they don't need to support Democrats), because of support by the GOP of clear anti-American, treasonous behavior - then that is already enough to kill the GOP. On the other hand, the GOP voters calling themselves supporters of Trump grew from below 45% to 55% (the average was 45%, the last value was 55%). So those >10% were the people convinced (in the last two years) by the intense right-ward pressure. Which leaves roughly 40% or so of GOP voters as the most conservative/radical/treasonous supporters. If even half of them abandon the GOP, because of any criticism by the GOP of the clear anti-American, treasonous behavior - then that is also enough to kill the GOP. So the GOP is in a very difficult position. If they go against the supporters of the attempted coup they lose, if they go for the supporters of the attempted coup they lose. Which is loving great. If the GOP in its current incarnation or ideology dies, the world is in a better place. DTurtle fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Jan 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
Alternately, the as-yet-not-Nazis could just... continue to be converted into Nazis, as has been happening steadily over the last two years by your math. Trump himself will be out of office, but that doesn't mean that the Nazification of Republicans will stop. This trend is a line that runs through Trump, through the Tea Party poo poo and Fox's normalization of "let's kill liberals and Obama" talk, through Sarah Palin and all her reality-twisting lies, through the radicalization of the Evangelical Christian Conservative moment adopting genocide of Muslims as an acceptable policy platform sheet 9/11, etc further and further back in time, slowly dripping and building and oozing into the brains of otherwise healthy people. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Jan 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:As close as a lot of elections are, Republicans losing even 20% of their supporters (either by going hard Trump or by losing the hard Trump vote) will mean electoral death at a national level and in a lot of states. It doesn't need to be 20% of their voters. The margins in most places are razor thin. 6% is Florida, North Carolina and Texas, 8% is Ohio and Iowa. And that's just national level, and in addition to the newly flipped states.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
People always overestimate the permanent damage from things like this imo. The GOP can and will regroup in a way that makes them competitive. Voters' memories are awfully short.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 16:52
|
|
|
The beauty of being a party of billionaires who don't want to govern is that you can afford to be patient. You don't even have to do anything in fact, just wait for the pendulum to start swinging the other way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
They collapsed the global economy and got swept back into power in a historic landslide right afterwards. Yeah part of that was the fault of the Obama admin totally loving up their response to it but that shoulda still been a "you're not capturing either chamber" for at least a decade level gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Alternately, the as-yet-not-Nazis could just... continue to be converted into Nazis, as has been happening steadily over the last two years by your math. paternity suitor posted:It doesn't need to be 20% of their voters. The margins in most places are razor thin. 6% is Florida, North Carolina and Texas, 8% is Ohio and Iowa. And that's just national level, and in addition to the newly flipped states.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
I think what remains to be seen is if Trump, and his allies, try to form their own party because they feel the Republicans betrayed them. I don't see this as likely since Trump is so old, and may just decide to gently caress off to Mar-a-lago for the rest of his hopefully short life. If Trump was like 60, I could definitely see him making a run in 24 under a new party banner. His kids don't have anywhere near the charisma of dad, but that probably won't stop them from trying to make a run at senator someplace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:I think what remains to be seen is if Trump, and his allies, try to form their own party because they feel the Republicans betrayed them. I don't see this as likely since Trump is so old, and may just decide to gently caress off to Mar-a-lago for the rest of his hopefully short life. If Trump was like 60, I could definitely see him making a run in 24 under a new party banner. His kids don't have anywhere near the charisma of dad, but that probably won't stop them from trying to make a run at senator someplace. I think part of the trouble is that George W Bush, who mostly disappeared, is the only person of their party of the same rank who is still alive. W didn't even try to show his face to keep a tangible reminder of what else the party can look like, whereas even Carter is semi-visible. If Biden completely goes off the rails, there could be up to three living former Democratic presidents to provide visible contrast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/1347589580799807493 Holy poo poo, almost hit 2020 GE levels of turnout for a runoff, that's insane. Especially given the sky high turnout for 2020
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/1347589580799807493 Said another way, it had higher turnout than any other election in Georgia history besides the 2020 GE.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Absolutely blown away that Joe Biden didn't see Latinos as part of his pathway to victory and didn't bother reaching out to them: https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1346625135298666497
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
They did try to reach out, but I think they got the sense it wasn't being especially effective. So they had to win the house, the Senate, and the presidency a different way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
Pick posted:They did try to reach out, but I think they got the sense it wasn't being especially effective. So they had to win the house, the Senate, and the presidency a different way. I wouldn't frame it as a success despite their lack of latino outreach. Extremely tight margins in key states in November - despite a historical villain - does not bode well for re-election. At least Biden is talking up stimulus spending now, so he may get a prosperous four years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
It was a success because they won all three of those things, which was thought incredibly improbable to nearly impossible in 2019. It's time for a reevaluation of November: it was a sound success.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
There is really no question I think that Democrats managed to solidly win the elections, there's no if or butts no, held their majority in the house, took the senate and the white house, all the ducks are lined up now. Good things are in fact possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There is really no question I think that Democrats managed to solidly win the elections, there's no if or butts no, held their majority in the house, took the senate and the white house, all the ducks are lined up now. Good things are in fact possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
Pick posted:It was a success because they won all three of those things, which was thought incredibly improbable to nearly impossible in 2019. It's time for a reevaluation of November: it was a sound success. Sure, in a very narrow and limited context that involves ignoring the fact the fastest growing demographic in the country didn't turnout in the numbers one would historically expect for the Democratic nominee during a year with record turnout.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
They won all the branches. They did what was thought nearly impossible. They now have a trifecta. Obviously, it was an excellent strategy, because it achieved the goals. Much like we might've thought Donald Trump 2016 strategy was not something we like to see, it obviously worked and that was therefore a good strategy as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
If we knew what the final outcome of all this was on the day after like usual, Democrats would be pretty happy with it instead of firing their DCCC chair. Incidentally, the RNC just reupped Ronna ROMNEY McDaniel today after what can only be described as a complete disaster of a cycle for the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
Are we keeping this thread open for the state races and municipal races happening across the country this year?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
Pick posted:They won all the branches. They did what was thought nearly impossible. They now have a trifecta. Obviously, it was an excellent strategy, because it achieved the goals. Much like we might've thought Donald Trump 2016 strategy was not something we like to see, it obviously worked and that was therefore a good strategy as well. Ignoring Hispanics is not a good strategy and they (at least, in November) succeeding despite that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Are we keeping this thread open for the state races and municipal races happening across the country this year? there will always be Number
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Sure, in a very narrow and limited context that involves ignoring the fact the fastest growing demographic in the country didn't turnout in the numbers one would historically expect for the Democratic nominee during a year with record turnout. What narrow and limited context? What was the expectation? Minority Groups are by far and large voting for Democrats. It's not as uniform as expected but as far as I am aware the changes year over year while concerning weren't significant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
Trump is the ultimate confounding variable for all this, and it's even more confounded after Wednesday. 2020 is going to be a major outlier in what is already a very small sample of presidential race results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Ignoring Hispanics is not a good strategy and they (at least, in November) succeeding despite that. Biden did better with Hispanics than Clinton did across the country (+1), it was statistically confounded by distribution based on one or two small areas. That's been very thoroughly discussed in this thread. And now, with what we have seen from the Georgia runoffs, it suggests that Hispanics are now even more on board with the Democratic Party than before. All around, big success based on all the data we have available.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:What narrow and limited context? What was the expectation? Narrow and limited meaning just focusing on the November election and its slim margin, but not looking at the impact such a strategy could have for the future of the party and Latino or Hispanic support. Particularly in a state like Texas, that the party has long thought to be within reach precisely due to a growing number of Latino voters in the state. Minority groups by and large voted Democrat, but in the margins Trump increased his raw numbers among Latinos, which was unexpected because he is a virulent racist towards towards that group. I would be curious to know why they decided that Latinos were just simply out of reach, how early they decided this, and whether there was any pushback. Pick posted:Biden did better with Hispanics than Clinton did across the country (+1), it was statistically confounded by distribution based on one or two small areas. That's been very thoroughly discussed in this thread. And now, with what we have seen from the Georgia runoffs, it suggests that Hispanics are now even more on board with the Democratic Party than before. All around, big success based on all the data we have available. And yet Trump improved his margins in most counties by improving his raw numbers over his 2016 performance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Particularly in a state like Texas, that the party has long thought to be within reach precisely due to a growing number of Latino voters in the state. Minority groups by and large voted Democrat, but in the margins Trump increased his raw numbers among Latinos, which was unexpected because he is a virulent racist towards towards that group. Obama in 2012 notably did exceptionally well with Latino voters. Biden did 6 points better than Obama in California, 10.5 points better in Texas, 9 points better in Arizona, and one point better in New Mexico. Ossoff and Warnock won the handful of majority Latino places in Georgia by much larger margins in the runoff than in the general election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
I'd like to know what outreach Trump did to Hispanic voters that worked so well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Obama in 2012 notably did exceptionally well with Latino voters. On the back of much easier voting and higher populations, yes. I am tempted to look at Trump doing better in the same context, until I look at his rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
zoux posted:I'd like to know what outreach Trump did to Hispanic voters that worked so well. Bashing Cuba seems to have worked out in his favour as far as Cuban voters are concerned
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2021 23:51
|
|
